Pages

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Oh, hell no.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."--The Declaration of Independence

It's time, my friends. Our government no longer provides for our security, but has had us riding that long train of abuses and usurpations delineated in the Declaration of Independence. Not only has our own judiciary been acting in the same manner as King George III when the various pacifistic and loyal British men who lived on this side of the Atlantic realized that the British monarchy did not see them as British subjects equal to those living in the British Isles, but our President has ignored and broken his oath as required by Article 2, section 1, clause 8 of the Constitution: "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'"

He has decided that it isn't against our interests to house known terrorists amongst our people.

He has decided that it is his duty to apologize to a world full of our enemies for our strength, and to reduce that strength both in appearance and in fact.

He has decided that it is within his power to take earned wealth from the few and give it to those who haven't earned it.

He has decided that it is within his power to revoke our God-given rights, by ignoring what limits are placed upon his power and the power of the legislature and judiciary by the Constitution of these United States and the amendments thereto.

I speak specifically of section 304 of the fully unconstitutional Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.

This section refers to energy efficiency of buildings. All buildings, publicly or privately owned, businesses or residences. Common readings suggest that this bill would infringe upon private property rights to the point that no one would own their own home in more than name only.

After all, how much do you actually own if the government forbids you to alter it in whatever way you see fit, within common-sense building safety codes?

This is unconstitutional on many levels. Not only is it unconstitutional in that nowhere in the Constitution is the right to pass legislature like this enumerated (making it expressly forbidden, by the language of the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"), but in several other amendments passed to protect private property rights from infringement and intrusion by the federal government:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"Due process of law" in this case means specifically legal process against the individual, such as the determination of whether or not a crime was committed, and the punishment of said crime, not sweeping, unconstitutional legislation intended to deprive large groups, if not the entire citizenry of the United States of America, of rights to live as they please, in freedom, and with full rights to their own property purchased with money they earned, and improved with their own money, sweat, and blood.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This amendment says that these rights are God-given, not government-granted by the Constitution or the amendments thereto, much less any legislation or treaty passed by the government that this document was designed to limit, and not empower. Which, again, means that the state does not and cannot tell you what to do with your own private property.

...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Again, "due process of law" refers to the legal determination of whether an individual committed a crime; however, this applies the Fifth Amendment (which had formerly only applied to the federal government's actions against its citizens) to the level of state government.

This particular section of the cap-and-trade bill violates every limitation of power that the Constitution places upon the federal government. As such, it is upon us to refuse to permit our government to remain in power.

8 comments:

I doubt anybody in D.C. realizes that the American people expect them to abide by the limits that the Constitution sets upon their powers. They spout about how wonderful the Constitution is, and each side accuses the other of unconstitutional acts, but both are guilty of trying to bring it down.

What they don't understand is that, heads up their asses or not, the American people are getting sick of their antics. And we will act.

I've been saying this when the HEALTH CARE issue comes up---with the baby boomers nearing 65, us seniors voting power will increase and if Allahbama does in fact cut off the 2010 Social Security COLA us current seniorswill really be pissed and hopefully we will get 'even' in the 2010congressional elections.....

I have hope, for a change, that BHO does lose his supermajority in 2010, through his and his congress's actions. It's not just this attack on private property rights, or the mandatory Medicaid, or the lack of COLA--take a look at HR 45. They pass that piece of shit, especially in light of everything else they're dumping on us, and they're screwed.

I know they don't. Most of them are too busy watching the latest celebrity FUBAR to pay attention, much less think about unintended (or intended) consequences. That's what the government is counting on in getting this harmful legislation rammed through before people have a chance to read it.

True, that...then again, they *think* they know what-all's in the bills they pass. They just either don't care about the results (other than the benefits to their own wallets), or don't think about the other things that the other critters got put in that will change the way things fall out.